Ethical Opinions in Research Ethics Committees
A Narrative Review of Normative Foundations, Deliberative Architecture, and Quality Standards
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21747831 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Helder Miguel R O Carreira (0009-0003-2729-6286, University of Beira Interior, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 15562646261454440-15562646261454440 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1556-2646 • E-ISSN: 1556-2654 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/15562646261454440 |
| PMID | 42231834 |
| OpenAlex | W7163388511 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 13 |
Research ethics committees occupy a central position in scientific governance, yet the literature reveals a persistent gap in structured, theoretically grounded guidelines for drafting ethical opinions. Opinions are frequently characterised by insufficient substantiation and communicative opacity, eroding researcher trust and institutional legitimacy. This study provides an integrated framework for the production of quality ethical opinions. A narrative review was conducted through searches in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, supplemented by normative documents from the WHO, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, and World Medical Association. Opinion quality depends on three interdependent dimensions: normative grounding in foundational principles, deliberative integrity in collective processes, and communicative responsibility in documented reasoning. The most frequent deficiencies concern informed consent and risk-benefit analysis. Structured discretionary judgement proves superior to algorithmic standardisation. This work is original in integrating Habermasian communicative rationality with the Aristotelian concept of phronesis to propose a tripartite framework that transcends compliance-based approaches
Business ethics · Deliberation · Discourse ethics · Narrative · Normative · Phronesis · Rationality · Research ethics · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Ethics in Clinical Research · Ethics in medical practice
What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research
International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research involving Humans
Defining institutional review board application quality
Measuring the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards
Of Parachutes and Participant Protection
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |